Executive Vice President & President of U.S. Healthcare, Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc
RFK Jr. poses a 'clear and present danger' to healthcare, warns ex-Walgreens executive Driscoll
John Driscoll, Walgreens Boots Alliance senior advisor, joins CNBC's 'Squawk Box' to discuss Trump's pick for HHS secretary.
About John Driscoll
John Driscoll, a senior advisor and former president of U.S. Healthcare at Walgreens Boots Alliance, appeared on CNBC's "Squawk Box" on November 15, 2024, to discuss President-elect Donald Trump's selection of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Driscoll stated that he considered Kennedy to represent a "clear and present danger" to the healthcare industry, describing some of Kennedy's prior statements as "populist sort of bunk" that had been "debunked." He questioned whether Kennedy was qualified for the role, citing the department's 80,000 employees and $2 trillion budget, and said it was reasonable to ask if Kennedy had the "management chops" and understanding of medicine and science to lead. Driscoll expressed concern that the wrong leadership could disrupt the partnership between the biopharmaceutical industry and the federal government, which he credited with extending global lifespans through vaccines, public health, and biopharmaceuticals. He also cited an example of Kennedy's views on vaccines and mercury, noting that some countries without mercury in vaccines still have higher autism rates, and said Kennedy would "still hold on to that notion in a kind of mythical way."
Transcript (9 segments)
I
Interviewer0:11
Vaccine skeptic among other things, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as his pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services. And vaccine maker stocks pulled back a little on that news yesterday. For a look at the potential broad impact on healthcare and farming, let's bring in John Driscoll, former President of Walgreens Boots Alliance U.S. Healthcare, now a senior adviser. What do you think, and do we know what the implications of this pick would be?
J
John Driscoll0:43
We cannot know for sure. We do not know if some of his views have evolved. But if you take some of his prior statements at face value, a lot of them are probably counterproductive to a healthier country. I think that many of us in industry are concerned that he represents a clear and present danger to one of the greatest industries of the world. Over 4 million years of human evolution, we extended our lifespan by about 11 years. In the last 120, we have more than doubled global lifespan, 27.3 years, based on vaccines, public health, and biopharmaceuticals. I think our industry is the envy of the world. I think many of us in industry are concerned that what he does not understand, he might damage.
I
Interviewer1:56
Even I have made this point: there is a reason for pasteurization, there are reasons for a lot of different conservatives that are put in food. Then I think about, as you said, biopharmaceuticals and the amount of genetic engineering that goes into most medicines, and cancer, and monoclonal antibodies, and the progress we have made. To just arbitrarily say anything genetically modified is bad, it's time you need some type of treatment for some horrific disease, you have to not use anything that has been developed through science. That makes no sense. On the other hand, I will say, in this country, we have a lifestyle problem, definitely with food and the amount of food and the type of food. It would be nice if you have facts on your side if you are dictating what people need to do.
J
John Driscoll3:20
To the point, he has raised good questions about the epidemic of obesity and chronic disease, and the food industry. The food industry is the ad department. He has raised good questions and reasonable questions about environmental pollutants. HHS has 80,000 employees, a $2 trillion budget, programs that affect 170 million people in Medicare and Medicaid, drugs and public health and vaccines that affect everyone. This is a completely different mandate and set of responsibilities. The best track record at delivering solutions over the last 100 years.
I
Interviewer4:18
Probably usually a good idea for the head of something like HHS to have that type of background. Even a person that is trained does rely on all of the people we need for a lot of the actual policies, like what Medicare covers for example with new drugs or whatever. Is it possible he could have good people underneath him and sort of make overall decisions that might not be as deleterious to everything?
J
John Driscoll4:54
I think you have a two-part challenge. I do not think he really has any experience that I know of in either science or medicine. These are very technical areas. People spend their entire careers developing that level of expertise. There is a range of opinions in science and medicine. Generally, you look for people with some qualifications. It is not that some of his questions are not reasonable. The real question is whether he is qualified. This is the NIH, the foundational venture capital fund for biopharmaceuticals, really to help put us in a position to lead in biopharmaceuticals. I think it is reasonable to ask.
I
Interviewer6:15
I think Trump, disruption is a big thing for him and draining the swamp, whatever you want to talk about. As you point out, you do not want to throw out necessarily the baby with the bathwater. Probably more good that comes from a lot of these things. It is important. And an error could affect millions of people. Take for example, vaccines. I have this: if certain countries over in Europe that do not use mercury in vaccines still have higher autism rates, you can probably say that it had nothing to do with the mercury. Yet he will still hold on to a pretty firm grasp of these things?
J
John Driscoll7:15
Again, I am neither a doctor nor a PhD in science, but you make a good point that today he appears to continue to spread the concern about mercury in vaccines that honestly have not been in our vaccines since the early 2000s. That sort of going from being a skeptic to sowing distress, I think, is a real concern for those of us in the healthcare industry who rely on the public to partner with us to use these novel vaccines and pharmaceuticals. In my lifetime, we have seen this process of research and life. That is because of the partnership between our biopharmaceutical industry and the federal government. I am concerned that the wrong leader might sort of mess that up.
I
Interviewer8:26
Even for me, some of his past views on environmental issues. I'm almost glad he would not be put in charge of some of the things I have seen he has claimed about that. I'm not sure I would want him at the EPA either, so I do not know.